An intelligent fuzzy-based system for handover decision in 5G-IoT networks considering network slicing and SDN technologies

By enabling 5G technology, IoT networks can improve the performance of connected IoT devices. However, handover, ping-pong effect and load balancing are critical issues because of massive and unplaned deployment of small cells. The handover operation in 5G wireless networks is complicated because there are many radio access techniques and technologies. Therefore, the mobility management is required to provide QoS for various applications. In this paper, we present a fuzzy-based system for handover decision in 5G wireless networks considering different network slicing parameters. We implement two Fuzzy-based Handover Decision Models (FHDM): FHDM1 and FHDM2. We evaluate the proposed models by simulations. For FHDM1, Slice Delay (SD), Slice Bandwidth (SB), and Slice Load (SL) are three input parameters and Handover Decision (HD) is the output parameter. For FHDM2, Slice Reliability (SR) is a new considered parameter, so it has four input parameters and the output parameter is HD the same as FHDM1. We found from simulation results that the considered parameters have different effects on HD. For both models, the HD value increases as SD and SL values increase while HD value is decreasing when SB and SR values increase. The results of the simulation indicate that although FHDM2 is more complex than FHDM1, it performs better HD since considers four input parameters. From the simulation results of FHDM2, when we changed SD value form 10% to 90%, we found that the HD value is increased by 50% when SR is 50% and SL is 90%. This indicates that when a user is connecting with the present slice that has bad QoS, it should handover to another slice with better QoS.

Automated summary

This study presents two fuzzy-based handover decision models for 5G wireless networks considering different network slicing parameters. The simulation results show that the considered parameters have different effects on handover decision. Additionally, the results indicate that the FHDM2 model performs better than the FHDM1 model since it considers four input parameters.